Missouri Considers Banning all Federal Gun Control Laws within the State

New Missouri Governor Mike Parson hasn’t indicated whether or not he supports the bill. (Photo: Governor Mike Parson Facebook)

The Show Me State has made headlines in recent years for its aggressive support of Second Amendment rights, but the legislature is now considering the ultimate protection: nullification. The Missouri legislature has reintroduced a bill that would nullify all federal gun control laws within the state and bars state agencies from employing any federal law enforcement official who tries to enforce said laws.

The Missouri House and Senate passed a similar piece of legislation in 2014, but then-Democratic Gov. Jeremiah Wilson “Jay” Nixon vetoed it. Now that a Republican holds the governor’s mansion in Jefferson City, Missouri may well become the first state to bar enforcement of laws that restrict its citizens’ gun rights.

According to the Second Amendment Preservation Act, “All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

SEE ALSO: Missouri Bill Requires All Residents to Own an AR-15

The bill’s authors point out that even though the state governments granted supremacy to the Constitution, respect for the federal government does not require “unlimited submission.” The bill specifies in detail all the types of federal laws and statues that will be null and void within Missouri’s borders and takes thinly veiled shots at NFA tax stamps and firearms registries.

All kinds of federal gun control laws will be void, including

  • Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
  • Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
  • Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
  • Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
  • Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

If passed, Missouri’s proposal will no doubt be subject to intense legal scrutiny. But David Kopel,  Research Director of the Independence Institute and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, told GunsAmerica that current precedent allows Missouri to order state and local employees not to enforce federal laws.

SEE ALSO: New Year, New Freedoms: Constitutional Carry Takes Effect in Missouri

However, Kopel also pointed out that precedent does not allow state officials to block federal officials from enforcing federal laws.

The bill’s authors appear to be aware of this prohibition. According to the legislation, federal officials are not barred from enforcing the law, but they cannot serve the state in any capacity.

Any federal law enforcement official working within the state who “enforces or attempts to enforce” gun laws or “gives material aid and support to the efforts of others who enforce or attempt to enforce” will be “permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.”

In addition, if a citizen believes he or she has been targeted by a law enforcement officer for violation of federal gun laws, the bill also empowers the citizen to sue that officer in Missouri.

In 2014, the Missouri House passed a different version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act on a 110-41 vote, and the Senate passed it 29-4. Republicans currently control over two-thirds of both the House and Senate, and Republican Gov. Mike Parsons took office last year. The governor has not indicated whether or not he will sign the bill upon its passage.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck and email him at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

{ 37 comments… add one }
  • Willie-O April 3, 2019, 4:20 am

    This pissing contest about what Mo politicians can and can’t do compared to what the federal government can and can’t do is in and of itself the unintended point to the Mo. law being discussed in the article. As long as there are lawyers this is and will remain “gray”….. “unchartered waters”….. until the case makes it all the way to the top and is heard and ruled upon by the US Supreme Court – IF they agree to hear it that is. In the meantime, it remains a current piece of this nation’s history: Jefferson’s state’s rights vs. Hamilton’s almighty federal government. Ahh and you thought history was a waste of time. Jefferson had it right by the way.

  • Oregon Norwegian April 2, 2019, 12:14 am

    God Bless the authors of this bill. Missouri is a breath of fresh air in regard to statutes, principals and, citizens. My kin migrated from Stone County, Missouri to Oregon. I’m ready to go back.

  • Christopher Chason March 31, 2019, 3:48 am

    Well, God Bless the folks in Missouri! FINALLY, someone is taking a stand! If I ever have to leave where I am now, Missouri is my next home!

  • NOODLER March 30, 2019, 2:03 am

    DO ANY OTHER STATES HAVE HAVE SIMILAR LAWS OR BILL PENDING THAT THE SHOW ME STATE HAS I HAVE HEARD THAT RURAL COUNTY\’S IN CALIF AND NEW YORK DISREGARD UNCONVENTIONAL LAWS FOR THERE RESIDENTS HAVE NOT SEE IT BUT MANY PEOPLE TALK OF IT I WONDER HOW MANY NON FRIENDLY GUN STATES DO THIS THIS HAS BEN GOING ON A LONG TIME AND WILL GO ON A LONG TIME AND PROBABLY KEEP GOING AND MORE COUNTY GETTING NEEDED SALE TAX JUST MY GUESS THANKS CFJ

  • NOODLER March 30, 2019, 2:01 am

    DO ANY OTHER STATES HAVE HAVE SIMILAR LAWS OR BILL PENDING THAT THE SHOW ME STATE HAS I HAVE HEARD THAT RURAL COUNTY’S IN CALIF AND NEW YORK DISREGARD UNCONVENTIONAL LAWS FOR THERE RESIDENTS HAVE NOT SEE IT BUT MANY PEOPLE TALK OF IT I WONDER HOW MANY NON FRIENDLY GUN STATES DO THIS THIS HAS BEN GOING ON A LONG TIME AND WILL GO ON A LONG TIME AND PROBABLY KEEP GOING AND MORE COUNTY GETTING NEEDED SALE TAX JUST MY GUESS THANKS CFJ

  • Robert March 29, 2019, 8:16 pm

    Well its great living in missouri.
    And we might see this pass as we passed open carry.

  • Patrick McWilliams March 29, 2019, 5:05 pm

    Overall, the feds do not see marihuana as a threat to their power. Illegal immigration has a very large constituency among Democrats seeking voters and Republicans wanting cheap labor. But firearms are the key to a culture of which the feds strongly disapprove.

    A couple of fellows in Kansas tried to take advantage of a similar law there by producing and selling firearm suppressors. In this case, the courts decided that this particular federal law was enforceable. There was no ACLU bought and paid for judge in Hawaii to overturn it.

    Feds will definitely fight this one. The Governor of Missouri will not serve your sentence when you decide to believe what the Founders said about the Second Amendment.

  • Shan March 29, 2019, 3:32 pm

    I live in a Commy state. I crave freedom. Thank God there are states like Missouri. Someday I will come join my fellow brothers and sisters. Unless they build a wall to keep me from leaving.

  • Clint W. March 29, 2019, 1:43 pm

    As a backwoods born and raised, in the most illigal still ridden county, Florida Cracker, we used to have places that refused to serve anybody but a Floridian, because, you could keep out anybody regardless of race or whatever you wanted to keep out since nobody from out of state was ever served. When you did that, you did no interstate business and the Discrimination Laws did not apply in that case. I don’t know if it is still done, but there was a fish place in St.Augustine as late as the 80’s that still held to the same practice. If the feds made a law to get around that loophole, then they will probably legally attack Missouri the same way.

  • Rangemaster11B March 29, 2019, 12:26 pm

    From my son, a deputy Sheriff in MO;

    “Yeah, doesn’t stop feds from coming in and getting you.”

  • John Boutwell March 29, 2019, 10:34 am

    As a resident of Missouri, I approve of this action.

    • Todd March 29, 2019, 11:19 am

      I concur as a Missouri resident.
      I’m happy to see our state in the forefront of preserving and protecting our Second Amendment!!

  • Poggy March 29, 2019, 10:06 am

    But, would this mean an infringement to a MA state law
    which says I can carry my gun to church on Sundays to
    protect from savages attacks?

  • Geo Ling March 29, 2019, 9:51 am

    We get in trouble when we rely too much on “precedent” as the courts, not the Constitution define precedent. The courts, as we have been thoroughly taught, do not always make Constitutional decisions. These precedents can linger for generations as following judges lean on them instead of going to the trouble of interpreting the Constitution themselves.

    “But David Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, told GunsAmerica that current precedent allows Missouri…”

    The Constitution and intent of the Founding Fathers provides for sovereignty for the States and supreme act, except in the case of the Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights, which are not to be usurped by the States.

    The fact is the FedGov itself is violating its own authority which is exactly the case for State nullification.

    • Geo Ling March 29, 2019, 9:54 am

      And with the above in mind, I suspect that careful study would reveal that the State’s can bar federal officials from enforcing nullified federal laws within their boundaries.

      This is one of the tools defined for us by the Founding Fathers to corral an out of control FedGov.

    • Poggy March 29, 2019, 10:09 am

      Precedent is not law and should not be applied to any court proceedings,
      it is definite to a single case, based on the facts of a single case and,
      not all cases have the same facts.

  • Jerry Herndon March 29, 2019, 9:35 am

    Well if a state can thumb their noses at Federal Immigration laws and proclaim to be sanctuary cities and states, why can’t it also apply to Federal gun laws? How about the states that have legalized marijuana in opposition to Federal law. I think Missouri is on solid ground if they wish to pass the bill.

    • Poggy March 29, 2019, 10:12 am

      If a state does not vote to accept a federal law, they do not have to abide by that law……
      which I believe is in the Constitution as states rights… federal law only applies to federal property….
      Now, all you “liberals” prove me wrong!

    • Rangemaster11B March 29, 2019, 11:05 am

      Those may be the precedents referred to in the article.

    • Dave C. March 31, 2019, 3:36 pm

      Jerry, I believe you are correct and agree 100%.

  • D.J. March 29, 2019, 9:15 am

    Damn . Makes me think about moving to MO. , should this pass .
    Fight the good fight , mighty MO. !!!!!!!

    • Todd March 29, 2019, 11:19 am

      We would love to have you!

  • Altoids March 29, 2019, 8:26 am

    Never know what will happen or what the consequences will be until this is signed into law. Missouri may want to seek the advice of a legal scholar or three before they stick their necks out too far, but on the face of it, this sounds like a good template for other states to follow.

    If the legal minds recommend a tweak or two, those should be added and the Missouri Governor should grow a big pair of hairy ones and sign it into law.

    Given the fact that “Sanctuary States” have gotten away with a similar bent when it comes to illegal immigration, this should stand as a precedent has been set (IMHO)

  • Jay March 29, 2019, 7:38 am

    I doubt seriously they will pass such a law. If they do, it would be one giant leap for mankind and our rights being restored. Politicians are all about control and rights granted or controlled by them, can also be taken away by them, be careful what you ask for. We are suppose to be in control, Not Them!

  • Dr Motown March 27, 2019, 7:44 am

    Would MO leave NICS and try to implement their own background check system? NICS is flawed enough, so how would the state be able to obtain criminal information from other states? I understand the spirit of what they are doing, and we need to be vigilant about the Blue states hegemony over federal law, but there can be unforeseen problems with going off on your own. I would like to read more about how the state will deal with the possibility of folks seeking gun applications that would be denied in neighboring states

  • Dewey March 26, 2019, 10:49 pm

    Wow! Not being able to work for the state of Missouri after retiring from the federal government? That’s showing them!

    • Chuck in MO March 29, 2019, 2:36 pm

      Not being able to work for the state if you have attempted to enforce such unconstitutional laws OR assisted the feds in doing so.

  • Dewey March 26, 2019, 10:47 pm

    These politicians that pretend to “stand up to” the federal government with these ridiculous bills are not helping anything. There is a thing called the supremacy clause in the constitution and, I hate to inform all of you “patriots”, threepers and states righters, that the tenth amendment does not apply to gun rights (or much of anything else). The federal law is the law of the land.

    • First March 28, 2019, 10:14 am

      You didn’t read the article.

    • Ted Koch March 29, 2019, 7:25 am

      Read the WHOLE article please, I personally think it’s a great idea I think we have too much big brother in our country already

    • Jay March 29, 2019, 7:36 am

      Read the article and try and understand what you read! The key wording is any law that interferes with Second Amendment rights!!

    • Bruce Wayne March 29, 2019, 8:06 am

      Wow you really need to get out more. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton on that:
      “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government … but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.”
      You are sadly mistaken. Federal has nothing to do with any of this. The CONSTITUTION is the SUPREME law of the land. You sound like a real “career politician” there.

      • Poggy March 29, 2019, 10:16 am

        Key woeds: “general government”, in effect, the federal government.

    • Will March 29, 2019, 9:31 am

      What about these states that have legalized marijuana? Or the sanctuary cities? They are either violating or refusing to enforce federal law to allow things that aren’t even protected by the Constitution.

    • noduty tosubmit March 29, 2019, 10:02 am

      You’re wrong buddy, States are Sovereign! Congress only controls property (including rights) and territories “belonging to the United States” go read Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. And the Feds can only “exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…” Article 1, Section 8 clause 17.

      Missouri can exclude federal power to the extent they are allowed by the Constitution, especially if the aim is to support the Constitution — 2A!

      Also — you people don’t have “firearms,” my ARs/AKs/Glocks…etc are “Arms” NOT “firearms.” Go watch “Gun Laws” are an illusion – Bear Arms in Massachusetts on YouTube —

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udsLzfSTXNs&t=3s

    • maddog March 29, 2019, 12:59 pm

      then why do the sanctuary states get away with harboring illegals. what’s allowed for one should be allowed for others…..

    • Todd March 29, 2019, 11:09 pm

      Thanks for the lecture Fudd.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend